NY Times
July 16, 2008
Editorial
Nobody could ever seriously accuse the Bush administration of being too aggressive when it comes to enforcing the nation’s environmental laws. But it was partly on those grounds that a federal court last week struck down the Clean Air Interstate Rule, a regulation aimed at reducing soot and smog and one of the few creative initiatives to emerge from the Environmental Protection Agency in the last seven years.
The decision was an unexpected triumph for a handful of utilities, including Duke Energy, which complained that the agency had overstepped its authority. It was also an enormous setback for the nation’s air quality and the health of all Americans.
In practical terms, the decision will invite power plant operators across the country to stop installing new pollution-control equipment required under the E.P.A.’s rule. To ensure that doesn’t happen, the administration should move quickly to fashion a new rule that can pass legal muster. If it does not, Congress must pass legislation that would accomplish the same ends.
The 2005 rule was aimed at sharply reducing power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, which creates acid rain, and nitrogen oxides, which create smog. The government estimated that cutting those emissions could help prevent 17,000 premature deaths annually by 2015. The rule covered emissions in 28 states east of the Mississippi River. It was aimed at pollution that blows eastward from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest, threatening not only human health but the environment — in New York’s case, the streams and forests of the Adirondacks.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was murky. The bottom line, though, is that the court agreed with Duke’s argument that in requiring sharper pollution reductions than those called for in the 1990 Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. had essentially usurped Congress’s authority.
The overwhelming majority of utilities did not challenge the rule, nor did the industry’s trade association. And some legal experts believe that the court — which has rightly struck down other administration rules that sought to weaken the Clean Air Act — erred in this instance. But the plain fact is that the rule no longer exists, and steps must be taken to replace it.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Surprisingly, Oil Declines for 2nd Day
NY Times
July 9, 2008
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
HOUSTON — Oil prices headed in an unusual direction — down — for the second consecutive day on Tuesday, leaving energy experts to wonder whether the drop is the beginning of a lasting trend or just a brief pause before another surge.
Oil settled at $136.04 a barrel, a drop of $5.33, or 3.8 percent. Analysts said the immediate causes included the strengthening of the dollar in recent days and the apparent veering northward of Bertha, the first hurricane of the 2008 hurricane season, meaning it was likely to miss the oil and natural gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.
They also noted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran had dismissed the possibility that war with the United States and Israel was imminent in remarks to reporters in Kuala Lumpur, relieving worries that Iran might try to block oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz.
The decline bolstered a rally in the stock market, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising 152.25 points, or 1.36 percent, to 11,384.21. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index ended up 1.71 percent, at 1,273.70, and the Nasdaq composite climbed 2.28 percent, to 2,294.44.
But even as a barrel of oil lost more than 6 percent of its value since the Fourth of July weekend, energy analysts warned that it was too soon to predict an outright collapse in prices. Some predicted that this was just one more in a series of pauses that has accompanied the volatile rise in oil prices from $60 last summer and just below $100 at the beginning of the year.
Others were just left bewildered.
Chip Johnson, the president and chief executive of Carrizo Oil and Gas, a Houston-based company, said he was “confused” by “such wild swings.” But he added: “I can’t see oil getting cheap again ever. It’s just too hard to find, and too many people want to use it.”
Any sustained decline in oil prices could help the consumer at a time when higher food and energy prices have forced many to cut back spending on other goods. It could also help the ailing automotive and airline industries, lower the trade deficit and strengthen the dollar. Prices for gold, silver, copper and corn also dropped on Tuesday.
But the factors bringing down oil prices over the last two days could be short-lived. Traders have been using oil as a hedge against the dollar in recent years, and there is no assurance the dollar will strengthen for long if the economy further weakens. Another hurricane could develop at any time, and the strongest normally come in August and September. Tensions in the Middle East, Nigeria and other oil-producing areas can always erupt to put pressure on tight reserves.
“I don’t think there has been any change in the overall direction of the oil market,” said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at Tradition Energy, an energy broker that deals with banks and hedge funds. “The bias is still clearly to the upside, with $150 firmly in the sights of traders.”
Consumers have felt no immediate relief at the pump. The price of the average gallon of regular unleaded gasoline on Tuesday remained at nearly $4.11, the same as the day before, and about a dime more than a month ago and $1.14 more than a year ago.
The rise in gasoline prices has not matched the rise in crude oil prices in recent months, largely because Americans are driving less, buying fewer gas-guzzling vehicles and using more mass transit.
MasterCard reported on Tuesday that American drivers decreased their consumption of gasoline in the days leading up to and including the holiday weekend by nearly 4 percent from the year before. It was the 21st consecutive week of lower gasoline consumption in comparison with last year.
So far, however, the decline in American oil consumption is being offset by increasing consumption in China, India, Latin America and in oil-producing countries. The Energy Information Administration, a United States government agency, reported that world oil consumption rose during the first half of 2008 by 520,000 barrels a day compared with the first half of 2007, even though consumption in the United States and other industrialized countries declined by 760,000 barrels a day.
The agency further projected that the average price this year for West Texas Intermediate Crude, the common benchmark price, would be $127, up from the 2007 average of $72 a barrel. Its projection for 2009 is $133 a barrel, slightly less than the current price.
But some energy experts say the price could drop further. They say it is possible that the kind of “demand destruction” for oil that is taking place in the United States and Europe could spread to China, India and other countries that subsidize gasoline and other energy supplies.
Governments in China, India, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have cut subsidies at least modestly in recent months because of strains on their budgets, and further subsidy cuts are considered likely, especially if oil prices continue to go up. Once their consumers see higher prices, they would be expected to cut their consumption.
“I see the pressure mounting on China big time,” said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. Mr. Gheit said he could foresee oil prices going as high as $170 by the end of the summer before plummeting. “The faster oil prices go up, the more severe the correction is going to be,” he added.
China is thought to have stockpiled oil supplies in recent months to assure adequate reserves of diesel fuel and gasoline for the Olympics in August and avoid embarrassing shortages while the country is trying to impress the world.
Once the Olympics are over, some energy experts predict the Chinese will decide to cut subsidies further and try to control oil imports, easing demand on world supplies and helping to bring crude prices down.
“There is no reason oil could not drop below $100 a barrel again,” said Phil Flynn, an energy analyst at the Alaron Trading Corporation. “You could see a substantial sell-off.”
James Crandell, an energy analyst at Lehman Brothers, said he also sees oil prices easing in the coming months but he offered several caveats.
“Hurricanes are the biggest upside risk for prices this summer,” he said, adding that “a conflict arising between Israel and Iran that would disrupt supplies would have an equal if not greater impact.”
July 9, 2008
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
HOUSTON — Oil prices headed in an unusual direction — down — for the second consecutive day on Tuesday, leaving energy experts to wonder whether the drop is the beginning of a lasting trend or just a brief pause before another surge.
Oil settled at $136.04 a barrel, a drop of $5.33, or 3.8 percent. Analysts said the immediate causes included the strengthening of the dollar in recent days and the apparent veering northward of Bertha, the first hurricane of the 2008 hurricane season, meaning it was likely to miss the oil and natural gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico.
They also noted that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran had dismissed the possibility that war with the United States and Israel was imminent in remarks to reporters in Kuala Lumpur, relieving worries that Iran might try to block oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz.
The decline bolstered a rally in the stock market, with the Dow Jones industrial average rising 152.25 points, or 1.36 percent, to 11,384.21. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index ended up 1.71 percent, at 1,273.70, and the Nasdaq composite climbed 2.28 percent, to 2,294.44.
But even as a barrel of oil lost more than 6 percent of its value since the Fourth of July weekend, energy analysts warned that it was too soon to predict an outright collapse in prices. Some predicted that this was just one more in a series of pauses that has accompanied the volatile rise in oil prices from $60 last summer and just below $100 at the beginning of the year.
Others were just left bewildered.
Chip Johnson, the president and chief executive of Carrizo Oil and Gas, a Houston-based company, said he was “confused” by “such wild swings.” But he added: “I can’t see oil getting cheap again ever. It’s just too hard to find, and too many people want to use it.”
Any sustained decline in oil prices could help the consumer at a time when higher food and energy prices have forced many to cut back spending on other goods. It could also help the ailing automotive and airline industries, lower the trade deficit and strengthen the dollar. Prices for gold, silver, copper and corn also dropped on Tuesday.
But the factors bringing down oil prices over the last two days could be short-lived. Traders have been using oil as a hedge against the dollar in recent years, and there is no assurance the dollar will strengthen for long if the economy further weakens. Another hurricane could develop at any time, and the strongest normally come in August and September. Tensions in the Middle East, Nigeria and other oil-producing areas can always erupt to put pressure on tight reserves.
“I don’t think there has been any change in the overall direction of the oil market,” said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at Tradition Energy, an energy broker that deals with banks and hedge funds. “The bias is still clearly to the upside, with $150 firmly in the sights of traders.”
Consumers have felt no immediate relief at the pump. The price of the average gallon of regular unleaded gasoline on Tuesday remained at nearly $4.11, the same as the day before, and about a dime more than a month ago and $1.14 more than a year ago.
The rise in gasoline prices has not matched the rise in crude oil prices in recent months, largely because Americans are driving less, buying fewer gas-guzzling vehicles and using more mass transit.
MasterCard reported on Tuesday that American drivers decreased their consumption of gasoline in the days leading up to and including the holiday weekend by nearly 4 percent from the year before. It was the 21st consecutive week of lower gasoline consumption in comparison with last year.
So far, however, the decline in American oil consumption is being offset by increasing consumption in China, India, Latin America and in oil-producing countries. The Energy Information Administration, a United States government agency, reported that world oil consumption rose during the first half of 2008 by 520,000 barrels a day compared with the first half of 2007, even though consumption in the United States and other industrialized countries declined by 760,000 barrels a day.
The agency further projected that the average price this year for West Texas Intermediate Crude, the common benchmark price, would be $127, up from the 2007 average of $72 a barrel. Its projection for 2009 is $133 a barrel, slightly less than the current price.
But some energy experts say the price could drop further. They say it is possible that the kind of “demand destruction” for oil that is taking place in the United States and Europe could spread to China, India and other countries that subsidize gasoline and other energy supplies.
Governments in China, India, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have cut subsidies at least modestly in recent months because of strains on their budgets, and further subsidy cuts are considered likely, especially if oil prices continue to go up. Once their consumers see higher prices, they would be expected to cut their consumption.
“I see the pressure mounting on China big time,” said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. Mr. Gheit said he could foresee oil prices going as high as $170 by the end of the summer before plummeting. “The faster oil prices go up, the more severe the correction is going to be,” he added.
China is thought to have stockpiled oil supplies in recent months to assure adequate reserves of diesel fuel and gasoline for the Olympics in August and avoid embarrassing shortages while the country is trying to impress the world.
Once the Olympics are over, some energy experts predict the Chinese will decide to cut subsidies further and try to control oil imports, easing demand on world supplies and helping to bring crude prices down.
“There is no reason oil could not drop below $100 a barrel again,” said Phil Flynn, an energy analyst at the Alaron Trading Corporation. “You could see a substantial sell-off.”
James Crandell, an energy analyst at Lehman Brothers, said he also sees oil prices easing in the coming months but he offered several caveats.
“Hurricanes are the biggest upside risk for prices this summer,” he said, adding that “a conflict arising between Israel and Iran that would disrupt supplies would have an equal if not greater impact.”
Richest Nations Pledge to Halve Greenhouse Gas
NY Times
July 9, 2008
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
RUSUTSU, Japan — President Bush and leaders of the world’s richest nations pledged Tuesday to “move toward a low-carbon society” by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, the latest step in a long evolution by a president who for years played down the threat of global warming.
The declaration by the Group of 8 — the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia — was the first time that the Bush White House had publicly backed an explicit long-term target for eliminating the gases that scientists have said are warming the planet. But it failed to set a goal for cutting emissions over the next decade, and drew sharp criticism from environmentalists, who called it a missed opportunity.
On Wednesday, leaders of developing nations took up the climate change issue and said that they too supported “a long-term global goal for emission reductions,” but they were not specific and fell short of supporting the Group of 8 declaration.
In a sense, the Group of 8 document represents an environmental quid pro quo. In exchange for agreeing to the “50 by 2050” language, Mr. Bush got what he has sought as his price for joining an international accord: a statement from the rest of the Group of 8 that developing nations like China and India, which have not accepted mandatory caps on carbon emissions, must be included in any climate change treaty.
European leaders, who have long pressed Mr. Bush to take a more aggressive stance on global warming, said the declaration could enhance efforts to reach a binding agreement to reduce emissions when negotiators meet in Copenhagen next year under United Nations auspices.
“This is a strong signal to citizens around the world,” the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, told reporters. “The science is clear, the economic case for action is stronger than ever. Now we need to go the extra mile to secure an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen.”
The leaders of the eight industrialized countries, who gathered on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido for their annual meeting, spent months debating the language of Tuesday’s communiqué in lower-level talks. Critics said it was short on specifics, and that developed and developing countries would need to make much sharper cuts in emissions to head off the worst effects of global warming.
The statement left unclear, for instance, if the cuts made by 2050 would be pegged to current emissions levels, or 1990 levels, as many advocates had hoped.
A 50 percent cut from current levels would result in a smaller decrease by 2050 than Japan and European nations had envisioned under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate agreement that the Bush administration rejected after it took office. Kyoto and earlier agreements had set 1990 as the baseline for cuts. The United States emitted about 20 percent more carbon dioxide in 2007 than it did in 1990.
“It is one step forward from the U.S. point of view, because President Bush has agreed that the United States, for the first time, must be bound by an international treaty,” said Philip E. Clapp, director of the Pew Environmental Group, who is here monitoring the negotiations. “But the emissions reduction goal is extremely weak; the language in the communiqué is almost meaningless.”
The White House painted the document as a victory.
“The G-8 is giving a lot, but the G-8 is also suggesting that others need to be part of that equation,” said James L. Connaughton, Mr. Bush’s top environmental adviser. “And that’s a very important shared statement.”
Mr. Bush did not speak publicly about it, although Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany raised the issue when she appeared briefly before cameras with the president, before the document was released. Mrs. Merkel, who has been pushing Mr. Bush to take a stronger stance on global warming, pronounced herself “very satisfied.”
Yet already, there are signs that the document could produce a rift between rich and poor nations. South Africa’s minister of environmental affairs, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, issued a blistering critique of Tuesday’s communiqué, calling it a concession to “the lowest common denominator” and expressing concern that it “may, in effect, be a regression from what is required to make meaningful change.”
Cutting emissions in half is one step in curtailing warming, climate experts have long said, because the main greenhouse gas generated by human activities, carbon dioxide, can persist for a century or more in the atmosphere, once it is released. As long as more is being emitted than the oceans or plants can absorb, its concentration will rise. And fuel emissions are projected to rise relentlessly, driven by quickly expanding economies in Asia.
For Mr. Bush, with just six months left in office, Tuesday’s declaration was part of a concerted effort to salvage his legacy on climate change. His reputation as an outlier on the issue was set in the earliest days of his administration, when he abandoned a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and refused to join the Kyoto Protocol because it did not apply to developing nations.
But over time, Mr. Bush’s stance has shifted. In 2005, he surprised Europeans when, on a trip to Denmark, he stated unequivocally that humans caused global warming.
Some advocates credit the Group of 8 with Mr. Bush’s shift. “The peer pressure on issues like climate change has helped,” Dennis Howlett, coordinator of the Canadian advocacy group Make Poverty History, said Tuesday.
On the way to last year’s Group of 8 meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany, Mr. Bush proposed his own process for grappling with global warming: a series of meetings involving so-called major emitters, including the developing nations China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, dubbed the Outreach Five.
Those leaders have been meeting this week in Sapporo, also on the island of Hokkaido, and on Tuesday they issued their own declaration, pledging, without specifics, to work toward reducing emissions in “a deviation from business as usual” if developing countries offered them financial assistance to do so.
“This is a positive answer to the G-8 leaders’ demand for action by all major emitters,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. “That’s news.”
Tuesday’s communiqué was not the end of the discussion here. On Wednesday, the Outreach Five leaders and their counterparts in South Korea, Indonesia and Australia joined the Group of 8 for a second round of talks and a declaration from the entire group was issued suggesting they believed developed countries should share the biggest portion of the climate change burden.
Alden Meyer, who is tracking the negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Tuesday evening, “Developing countries want the industrialized world to do more.”
The climate paper was among a series of communiqués issued Tuesday on matters as varied as the rising food prices, the global economy, aid to Africa and the political crisis in Zimbabwe.
Environmentalists’ feelings were perhaps best summed up in an ad in The Financial Times on Tuesday, placed by Avaaz.org, an international online advocacy group. It showed the faces of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada pasted on the Japanese cartoon character Hello Kitty.
“Hello Kiddies,” the headline read. “Be a grown-up. Set 2020 climate targets now.”
July 9, 2008
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
RUSUTSU, Japan — President Bush and leaders of the world’s richest nations pledged Tuesday to “move toward a low-carbon society” by cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, the latest step in a long evolution by a president who for years played down the threat of global warming.
The declaration by the Group of 8 — the United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia — was the first time that the Bush White House had publicly backed an explicit long-term target for eliminating the gases that scientists have said are warming the planet. But it failed to set a goal for cutting emissions over the next decade, and drew sharp criticism from environmentalists, who called it a missed opportunity.
On Wednesday, leaders of developing nations took up the climate change issue and said that they too supported “a long-term global goal for emission reductions,” but they were not specific and fell short of supporting the Group of 8 declaration.
In a sense, the Group of 8 document represents an environmental quid pro quo. In exchange for agreeing to the “50 by 2050” language, Mr. Bush got what he has sought as his price for joining an international accord: a statement from the rest of the Group of 8 that developing nations like China and India, which have not accepted mandatory caps on carbon emissions, must be included in any climate change treaty.
European leaders, who have long pressed Mr. Bush to take a more aggressive stance on global warming, said the declaration could enhance efforts to reach a binding agreement to reduce emissions when negotiators meet in Copenhagen next year under United Nations auspices.
“This is a strong signal to citizens around the world,” the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, told reporters. “The science is clear, the economic case for action is stronger than ever. Now we need to go the extra mile to secure an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen.”
The leaders of the eight industrialized countries, who gathered on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido for their annual meeting, spent months debating the language of Tuesday’s communiqué in lower-level talks. Critics said it was short on specifics, and that developed and developing countries would need to make much sharper cuts in emissions to head off the worst effects of global warming.
The statement left unclear, for instance, if the cuts made by 2050 would be pegged to current emissions levels, or 1990 levels, as many advocates had hoped.
A 50 percent cut from current levels would result in a smaller decrease by 2050 than Japan and European nations had envisioned under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate agreement that the Bush administration rejected after it took office. Kyoto and earlier agreements had set 1990 as the baseline for cuts. The United States emitted about 20 percent more carbon dioxide in 2007 than it did in 1990.
“It is one step forward from the U.S. point of view, because President Bush has agreed that the United States, for the first time, must be bound by an international treaty,” said Philip E. Clapp, director of the Pew Environmental Group, who is here monitoring the negotiations. “But the emissions reduction goal is extremely weak; the language in the communiqué is almost meaningless.”
The White House painted the document as a victory.
“The G-8 is giving a lot, but the G-8 is also suggesting that others need to be part of that equation,” said James L. Connaughton, Mr. Bush’s top environmental adviser. “And that’s a very important shared statement.”
Mr. Bush did not speak publicly about it, although Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany raised the issue when she appeared briefly before cameras with the president, before the document was released. Mrs. Merkel, who has been pushing Mr. Bush to take a stronger stance on global warming, pronounced herself “very satisfied.”
Yet already, there are signs that the document could produce a rift between rich and poor nations. South Africa’s minister of environmental affairs, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, issued a blistering critique of Tuesday’s communiqué, calling it a concession to “the lowest common denominator” and expressing concern that it “may, in effect, be a regression from what is required to make meaningful change.”
Cutting emissions in half is one step in curtailing warming, climate experts have long said, because the main greenhouse gas generated by human activities, carbon dioxide, can persist for a century or more in the atmosphere, once it is released. As long as more is being emitted than the oceans or plants can absorb, its concentration will rise. And fuel emissions are projected to rise relentlessly, driven by quickly expanding economies in Asia.
For Mr. Bush, with just six months left in office, Tuesday’s declaration was part of a concerted effort to salvage his legacy on climate change. His reputation as an outlier on the issue was set in the earliest days of his administration, when he abandoned a campaign promise to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and refused to join the Kyoto Protocol because it did not apply to developing nations.
But over time, Mr. Bush’s stance has shifted. In 2005, he surprised Europeans when, on a trip to Denmark, he stated unequivocally that humans caused global warming.
Some advocates credit the Group of 8 with Mr. Bush’s shift. “The peer pressure on issues like climate change has helped,” Dennis Howlett, coordinator of the Canadian advocacy group Make Poverty History, said Tuesday.
On the way to last year’s Group of 8 meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany, Mr. Bush proposed his own process for grappling with global warming: a series of meetings involving so-called major emitters, including the developing nations China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, dubbed the Outreach Five.
Those leaders have been meeting this week in Sapporo, also on the island of Hokkaido, and on Tuesday they issued their own declaration, pledging, without specifics, to work toward reducing emissions in “a deviation from business as usual” if developing countries offered them financial assistance to do so.
“This is a positive answer to the G-8 leaders’ demand for action by all major emitters,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. “That’s news.”
Tuesday’s communiqué was not the end of the discussion here. On Wednesday, the Outreach Five leaders and their counterparts in South Korea, Indonesia and Australia joined the Group of 8 for a second round of talks and a declaration from the entire group was issued suggesting they believed developed countries should share the biggest portion of the climate change burden.
Alden Meyer, who is tracking the negotiations for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Tuesday evening, “Developing countries want the industrialized world to do more.”
The climate paper was among a series of communiqués issued Tuesday on matters as varied as the rising food prices, the global economy, aid to Africa and the political crisis in Zimbabwe.
Environmentalists’ feelings were perhaps best summed up in an ad in The Financial Times on Tuesday, placed by Avaaz.org, an international online advocacy group. It showed the faces of Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada pasted on the Japanese cartoon character Hello Kitty.
“Hello Kiddies,” the headline read. “Be a grown-up. Set 2020 climate targets now.”
Monday, July 07, 2008
KENNEBEC COMMUTER: Saving gas: The myths and the facts
KJ
BY MEGHAN V. MALLOY
Staff Writer
06/30/2008
As the Kennebec Commuter, we’re used to being bombarded with supposed “tips and tricks” from a plethora of sources on how to save gas and the almighty dollar.
Drivers need to be wary of some tips and tricks, though, as they entice you, the driver, to put more money into your car. As a wise man — better known as the Kennebec Commuter’s old man — once said, “You don’t spend money to save money” (or maybe that was “to make money.” Well, the bottom line is, you don’t spend cash to do either).
We decided to call Jessica Lin, a spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit dedicated to (you guessed it) saving energy. This group, which works closely with the Oakridge National Lab (part of the federal Department of Energy), has assembled a web site concerning myths, tips and tricks drivers can use to save gas. Even we learned a thing or two. Check it out at www.drivesmarterchallenge.org.
MYTH: Change your oil every 3,000 miles for better fuel efficiency. You loyal readers already know the drill with this one. Oil changes every 3,000 miles are not necessary for every make or model of vehicle; most can go between 5,000 to 7,500 miles before a trip to your mechanic is needed. In fact, having the oil changed every 3,000 can cost you more money over time and just ups your oil consumption.
FACT: Turning off your air conditioner. The Kennebec Commuter first heard about this one in college. A friend said turning off the A/C actually saves fuel. Though we abhor rolling down the windows and having our hair fly around while we sweat to death this summer, this tip is actually true. Consumer Reports found shutting off the A/C and rolling down the windows in the city shaves a mile off per gallon.
MYTH: Turning the car back on rather than letting it idle consumes more fuel. No. In fact, Consumer Reports recommends to drivers if they will be stopped for an extended amount of time, say, several minutes at a railroad crossing or in bumper-to-bumper traffic, turning the vehicle off will save fuel. Idling ultimately uses more gas.
FACT: Driving slower saves gas. We admit it: We were skeptical for a long time about this one. And even if it does work, we reasoned, you’d create a traffic back-up, enticing a wicked case of road rage. Well, serve us a huge slice of humble pie. Vincent Caccese, a professor of structural mechanics at the University of Maine, set the record straight.
“It’s not a myth,” Caccese said. “There is truth to it. If (the engine) were to run at 80 miles per hour — not that I would recommend doing that — it won’t run as efficiently as it would at 60 miles per hour.”
Alliance for Saving Energy spokeswoman Jessica Lin added that every five miles per hour over 60 mph equals another 20 cents in gas.
MYTH: Using cruise control eats up more gas. On frequent trips to Boston, the Kennebec Commuter has noticed using the cruise control seems to take more fuel than just putting the pedal to the metal. It appears, however, using the cruise control while driving on the interstate for extended distances may serve the driver better.
Why? Let’s go back to the idea of driving slower. If you leave the cruise control on 60 mph (the optimal speed on several, though not all, models of vehicles), the vehicle is operating at its finest and most efficient. Remember, speeds in increments of five miles per hour over 60 means you’re going to start losing money.
Follow Meghan Malloy’s commuter blog and track the cheapest gasoline prices in town daily at www.kjonline.com.
BY MEGHAN V. MALLOY
Staff Writer
06/30/2008
As the Kennebec Commuter, we’re used to being bombarded with supposed “tips and tricks” from a plethora of sources on how to save gas and the almighty dollar.
Drivers need to be wary of some tips and tricks, though, as they entice you, the driver, to put more money into your car. As a wise man — better known as the Kennebec Commuter’s old man — once said, “You don’t spend money to save money” (or maybe that was “to make money.” Well, the bottom line is, you don’t spend cash to do either).
We decided to call Jessica Lin, a spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit dedicated to (you guessed it) saving energy. This group, which works closely with the Oakridge National Lab (part of the federal Department of Energy), has assembled a web site concerning myths, tips and tricks drivers can use to save gas. Even we learned a thing or two. Check it out at www.drivesmarterchallenge.org.
MYTH: Change your oil every 3,000 miles for better fuel efficiency. You loyal readers already know the drill with this one. Oil changes every 3,000 miles are not necessary for every make or model of vehicle; most can go between 5,000 to 7,500 miles before a trip to your mechanic is needed. In fact, having the oil changed every 3,000 can cost you more money over time and just ups your oil consumption.
FACT: Turning off your air conditioner. The Kennebec Commuter first heard about this one in college. A friend said turning off the A/C actually saves fuel. Though we abhor rolling down the windows and having our hair fly around while we sweat to death this summer, this tip is actually true. Consumer Reports found shutting off the A/C and rolling down the windows in the city shaves a mile off per gallon.
MYTH: Turning the car back on rather than letting it idle consumes more fuel. No. In fact, Consumer Reports recommends to drivers if they will be stopped for an extended amount of time, say, several minutes at a railroad crossing or in bumper-to-bumper traffic, turning the vehicle off will save fuel. Idling ultimately uses more gas.
FACT: Driving slower saves gas. We admit it: We were skeptical for a long time about this one. And even if it does work, we reasoned, you’d create a traffic back-up, enticing a wicked case of road rage. Well, serve us a huge slice of humble pie. Vincent Caccese, a professor of structural mechanics at the University of Maine, set the record straight.
“It’s not a myth,” Caccese said. “There is truth to it. If (the engine) were to run at 80 miles per hour — not that I would recommend doing that — it won’t run as efficiently as it would at 60 miles per hour.”
Alliance for Saving Energy spokeswoman Jessica Lin added that every five miles per hour over 60 mph equals another 20 cents in gas.
MYTH: Using cruise control eats up more gas. On frequent trips to Boston, the Kennebec Commuter has noticed using the cruise control seems to take more fuel than just putting the pedal to the metal. It appears, however, using the cruise control while driving on the interstate for extended distances may serve the driver better.
Why? Let’s go back to the idea of driving slower. If you leave the cruise control on 60 mph (the optimal speed on several, though not all, models of vehicles), the vehicle is operating at its finest and most efficient. Remember, speeds in increments of five miles per hour over 60 means you’re going to start losing money.
Follow Meghan Malloy’s commuter blog and track the cheapest gasoline prices in town daily at www.kjonline.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
